Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Swan Lake-Lake Tyee Intertie, Record of Decision, August 1997
RECEIVED SEP 1? 1997 Swan Lake- Lake Tyee | : DIVISION OF ENERGY eaintertie i ~ AUGUST 1997 RECORD OF DECISION Swan Lake-Lake Tyee Intertie United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service—Alaska Region, Alaska Lead Agency U.S.D.A. Forest Service Tongass National Forest Ketchikan and Wrangell Ranger Districts Responsible Officials James J. DeHerrera District Ranger Ketchikan Ranger District Tongass National Forest 3031 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 and Stephen Brady District Ranger Wrangell Ranger District Tongass National Forest P.O. Box 51 Wrangell, Alaska, 99929 For Further Information Bill Angelus EIS Coordinator Ketchikan Ranger District Tongass National Forest 3031 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 (907) 225-2148 Record of Decision TABLE OF CONTENTS Background «ce sss ss neaumere ss sHesteweeet soem oEee ss HeneeEeEs sss oe 1 Decision 2... 0... eee net eens 2 Features Of The Selected Alternative «.00.cseaessuvenpesuss HQnamaEs +s rage 3 Reasons For Decision ..... 2... 0.2. 4 How’ Issues| Are: Addressed, o0.5 c6 +s sonoeeees ss eenenee es ve qanewae ss eas 5 Issue 1—Economics and Financial Feasibility ..................02000008 5 Issue 2—Fish and Water Quality .......... 0.0.0.0. 2c cece eee eee eee 5 Issue 3—Wildlife and Biodiversity .... 2... 0.0... cece eee eee eee 6 Issie: 4—Airctaft Safety cu ccus s ee assusee ss s+ dneeese + +s somes sis: 2 6 Issue 5—Subsistence and Cultural Resources .............0. 00002 eee eee 6 Issue 6—Recreational and Visual Resources ............ 00.000 eee eeeee 7 Issue 7—Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSR) .............0 0000 eee eee eeee 7 Pubic Involvement < s.oncseesnus s vasouasesar ss CAISEGGRs ss sanmeaanEs 7 Coordination With Other Agencies ..... 2.2.6... c eee cee eee 8 Alternatives Eliminated From Detailed Study ............. 0.000000 0 20 ee eee 8 Alternative Intertie Designs and Routes ........... 0.000 e eee e eee eens 8 Alternative Design Configuration Between Lake Tyee and Eagle Bay ...... 8 Complete Underwater Cable Route .............. 0000: e eee eee eee 9 East Side of Eagle Lake and River Route ................-.0-5--00-- 9 Refiection Lake Route: oj5< 2. esigewue ees os ee sores: +: ssuucuse ss oe 9 Altestiative Energy Sources ans nn acascsae ess wae weee «+ csisagwepd +39 9 Alternatives Considered for Detailed Study ............ 0.000. e ee eee ee eee 9 Alternative 1 (No Action) ..... 20.0.0... cece eee eee eee eee 13 Alternative 2 (the Proposed Action) ... 2.2... 0.6.0 cece ee eee eee eee 13 Alternative 3 (the Hoya-Neets Route) ......... 0.000.002 cece eee eee eee 13 Options: to: Altemiative 2: 2 auc s sqoonseweseess Danceowe sss nce ee st 18 Environmentally Preferred Alternative ......... 20.0000 e eee eee eee ee eee 19 Planning Recon « . iassuscnees saqgnneeseae s sue asmoess 4 i. usuesee si sc 19 Mitigation ©... 6... cee eet ete eee 20 Monitoring And Enforcement «<< <<: ccscuwweeu sé esawewis ssc teaweewe ss 20 Findings Required By Law And Regulations ................20 0000s eeeeeee 20 National Forest Management Act . «262662062456 seseeeesess aunmweuw as 20 Endangered ‘Species Actiof 1973: ss. cccoseeweess wowaemes sss isammww ss 26 National Historic Preservation Act of 1996 ....... 0.0.00 cece eee ee eee 27 Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988 .......... 0.00.00 -0 eee ee 27 Subsistence Evaluations and Findings ........... 0... 0c eee eee eee eens 27 RECORD OF DECISION @ iii Record of Decision iv ™ RECORD OF DECISION Executive Orders .. 1.2.2... cee ee ce tee tenet tne 27 Floodplain Management (E.O. 11988) ... 2.2... 0... e eee eee eee eee 27 Protection of Wetlands (E.O. 11990) .... 2... ... cece eee ee 28 Environmental Justice (E.O. 12898) ..............0 000 eee eee eee 28 Recreational Fisheries (E.O. 12962) .... 2... eee 28 Coastal: Zone Management, Act 236 05s ses es ee ee eee se aS 28 Rederali and ‘State Permits neccacenas ss cosstworis so Sueneee ss cae seE 28 Implementation Process .. 1.2.6... cece eee eee eens 28 Process For Change During Implementation ............. 000 ee eee ee eerie 29 Right To Appeal . 0.0.2... 0c eee eee 30 TABLES Table 1. Summary of Alternative Energy Sources Not Considered in Detail........ 10 Table 2. Alternatives and Options Considered in Detail ..............20-0004- 11 Table 3. Physical, Economic, and Environmental Effects of Alternatives .......... 14 Table 4. Site-Specific Mitigation Measures Incorporated into the Selected Alternative . 21 FIGURES Figure 1. Swan Lake-Lake Tyee Intertie Route Segments Map .............-.-- 12 RECORD OF DECISION Background Ketchikan Public Utilities (KPU) plans to ask the USDA Forest Service to grant a Special Use Permit that would allow KPU to build and operate an electrical transmission line that would cross the Tongass National Forest. The Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS or FEIS) has been prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant state and Federal laws and regulations so the Forest Service will be prepared to respond to that request. The Final EIS discloses direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects, any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources that would result from the proposed project, and alternative actions that meet KPU’s stated need to increase the amount of electricity to the customers in its service area. The underlying purpose and need to which this project responds is for KPU to: (1) provide a reliable and efficient source of power for the City of Ketchikan’s intermediate and long- range needs at reasonable rates while (2) establishing an important link in the long- proposed electrical network for southern Southeast Alaska so that (3) more communities would have access to more power sources or more power customers. This project would help meet the Forest Plan’s goal of "providing a diversity of opportunities for resource uses that contribute to the local and regional economies of southeast Alaska." The Forest Service proposes to authorize the project proponent, KPU, to construct an approximately 57-mile-long 138-kV electric transmission line that would intertie the electrical systems of KPU, Petersburg Municipal Power & Light, and Wrangell Municipal Light & Power. Called the Swan Lake-Lake Tyee Intertie (the Intertie), the line would connect the existing Swan Lake hydroelectric project and the existing Lake Tyee hydroelectric project. Currently, Ketchikan is connected to the Swan Lake project and Wrangell and Petersburg are connected to the Lake Tyee project. The Intertie would provide the "missing link" between the two projects and three communities (see Proposed Action in the Summary). As proposed by KPU, the Intertie would lie within a 200-foot-wide corridor identified during an earlier feasibility study as the "preferred site" for the transmission line. The corridor is approximately 57 miles long, of which 53.5 miles are over land and 3.5 miles are over water. Nearly 47 miles (1,137 acres) of the corridor lie on National Forest System land administered by the Forest Service. The corridor is almost entirely unroaded and follows lower elevations to minimize visual impacts, avoid steep and unstable areas, and avoid extreme weather conditions. As proposed, the transmission line would require long aerial crossings at Shrimp Bay, Behm Canal, Bell Arm, and Eagle River. RECORD OF DECISION @ 1 Record of Decision 2 m@ RECORD OF DECISION Public scoping and analysis under NEPA began with issuance of the Notice of Intent published in the Federal Register on January 6, 1995. A Draft EIS was published in March 1996. In total, 23 comment letters were received on the Draft EIS. This Record of Decision (ROD) and the Final EIS disclose the environmental effects of the alternatives considered and document the decision for authorization of activities within the Project Area. In developing the Final EIS and this ROD, we recognize that less than complete knowledge exists about many relationships and conditions of wildlife, fish, forests, and communities. The ecology, inventory, and management of a large forest area is a complex and developing science. The biology of wildlife species prompts questions about population dynamics and habitat relationships. The interaction of resource supply, the economy, and communities is the subject matter of an inexact science. The data and level of analysis used in the Final EIS were commensurate with the importance of the possible impacts (40 CFR 1502.15). When encountering a gap in information, the interdisciplinary team (IDT) took one of two approaches: (1) they collected the missing information or conducted the analysis necessary to identify important relationships; or (2) they concluded that, although the missing information would have added precision to estimates or better specified a relationship, the basic data and central relationships are sufficiently well established in the respective sciences that the new information would be very unlikely to reverse or nullify understood relationships. Thus any information missing from the Final EIS was determined to be not essential for a reasoned choice among the alternatives. Decision This ROD documents our decision to allow construction and operation of the Intertie on the Tongass National Forest. Our decision encompasses the following: ° the location and design of the transmission line; . the location and design of log transfer facilities and other ancillary facilities such as log bags, barges, and marshalling areas; ° necessary standards, guidelines, and mitigation measures required to protect resource interests; and ° the sale of timber felled during right-of-way clearing operations to Ketchikan Public Utilities. It is our decision to select Alternative 2 with Option 1 for implementation. Alternative 2, Option 1 is the transmission line route proposed by KPU without a construction and maintenance access road (see further description of Alternative 2, Option 1 in Chapter 2 of the Final EIS). This decision does not preclude future proposals that may include road construction in or adjacent to the transmission line corridor if this is proposed by a qualified entity, but any future proposal would depend on its own analysis of environmental effects subject to the NEPA process. The transmission line’s clearing, construction, and maintenance operations would be accomplished entirely by helicopter. This decision is responsive to issues raised during scoping, data gathered and analyzed, public responses to the Draft EIS, and testimony received at subsistence hearings. Record of Decision Features Of The Selected Alternative 1. The Selected Alternative includes approximately 57 miles of 138-kV electric transmission line that would intertie the electrical systems of KPU, Petersburg Municipal Power & Light, and Wrangell Municipal Light & Power. The line would connect the existing Swan Lake hydroelectric project to the Lake Tyee hydroelectric project, and would provide the "missing link" between the two projects and three communities. As proposed by KPU, the Intertie would lie within a corridor identified during an earlier feasibility study as the "preferred site" for the transmission line (R.W. Beck and Associates 1992). Most of the corridor is located on National Forest System lands administered by the Forest Service. The corridor is almost entirely unroaded and follows lower elevations to minimize visual impacts, avoid steep and unstable areas, and avoid extreme weather conditions. As proposed, the transmission line would require long aerial crossings at Eagle River, Bell Arm, Behm Canal, and Shrimp Bay. The transmission line would consist of overhead conductors supported on poles ranging from 50 to 80 feet high, and centered on a 200-foot-wide right-of-way. At least 100 feet of the right-of-way would be cleared in most areas. Clearing and construction activities within the corridor would be accomplished using helicopter construction techniques common in Southeast Alaska. KPU would purchase timber removed from the right-of-way and other trees that may pose a hazard to the powerline. 2 The Selected Alternative also includes plans to establish temporary work areas along the transmission line route. Land-based marshalling areas for equipment and materials would be built at Swan Lake, Shrimp Bay, near Ketchikan, and possibly near the existing Lake Tyee power facility. Several temporary barge-based facilities would be used to transport marketable timber cleared from the transmission line right-of-way. The barge facilities would be in place for one construction season (about 3 months) near (but not in) Eagle Bay, in Bell Arm, in Behm Canal, and near Klu Bay. A rafting area of up to 10 acres could be used in Shrimp Bay. In addition, one construction camp at Swan Lake and several floating barge camps are planned for use during two construction seasons. s Our decision is consistent with the 1997 TLMP Forest Plan recommended Wild and Scenic River System (WSR) designations. 4. This Record of Decision identifies mitigation measures authorized to reduce or eliminate adverse environmental effects of transmission line construction and operation as specified in the Selected Alternative. The list of mitigation measures also specifies the monitoring that will be conducted to verify that measures are implemented properly (see Mitigation section). RECORD OF DECISION @ 3 Record of Decision Reasons For Decision 4 ™@ RECORD OF DECISION In making our decision, we worked hard to assure consideration of all issues and to take into account the competing interests and values of the public. In particular, the project mitigation measures included in this decision incorporate comments from other agencies and address public concerns. There were many divergent public, personal, and professional opinions expressed during this project. This decision will probably not completely satisfy any one particular group or individual. However, we considered all views and believe the decision we have made is reasonable. The Selected Alternative provides a beneficial use of resources for the public within the framework of the existing laws, regulations, policies, public needs and desires, and capabilities of the land, while meeting the stated purpose and need for this project. Our decision to implement the Selected Alternative is in conformance with the 1997 Tongass Land Management Plan and sound National Forest management. We have considered the need for KPU to provide adequate power to its consumers at reasonable rates. We have also considered the need to provide strong conservation measures for fish, wildlife, and other resources important to subsistence, recreation, commercial, and other uses. We believe the reduced cost (approximately $25.2 million less than Alternative 3) and reduced amount of line clearing needed (approximately 10.3 miles or 200 acres less than Alternative 3) under Alternative 2 makes it more responsive to the issues of economics and financial feasibility. Alternative 2, Option 1 is the same as Alternative 3 with regard to providing power for intermediate- and long-range needs; however, it does so at a lower cost to the consumer. Alternative 2, Option 1 also has less adverse environmental consequences than Alternative 3. Alternative 3 is a longer route requiring the clearance of additional acreage. It also crosses a legislatively protected LUD II area and a river recommended in the Forest Plan for designation as Wild and Scenic River. Alternative 2 uses a shorter route and affects only one river considered eligible for Wild and Scenic River status, but which was not recommended in the Forest Plan. Alternative 1 (No Action) does not meet the purpose and need with regard to establishment of a link in the electrical network for Southeast Alaska. Also, based on our review of Chapter 2 of the FEIS, we believe that Alternative 2 is superior to Alternative 1 in emphasizing opportunities for resource use that contribute to the local and regional economies of Southeast Alaska. Comparison of the alternatives regarding these considerations is provided in more detail in Chapter 2 of the FEIS. In addition to the purpose and need, some of the key considerations in our decision among the alternatives were: (a) water quality issues in the Carroll Creek, Neets Creek, and Eagle River watersheds, and (b) aircraft safety and the higher cost of underwater routes. Within the Eagle River valley we selected Alternative 2, Option 1 over the less costly Option 7 (a $3.3 million savings) because Option 7 would have required crossing known landslide areas. The route for the selected alternative crosses land that is more stable and therefore poses less risk to soil and water resources. KPU asked for the option to have both routes authorized until further studies could be Issue 1— Economics and Financial Feasibility Issue 2— Fish and Water Quality Record of Decision performed. We considered this request but decided to select the original proposed Alternative 2 route because it better protects soil and water resources. 5: A key issue examined in the FEIS was what effects the various alternatives would have on the Forest Plan’s Wild and Scenic River recommendations to Congress. The selected alternative does not affect any of the rivers recommended for inclusion as Wild and Scenic Rivers in the Forest Plan. Alternative 3 would have affected the recommendation for Anan Creek. Orchard Creek and Lake’s recommendation would have been affected by Alternative 2, Option 2. The selected alternative avoids both of these recommended rivers. It does impact the outstandingly remarkable values associated with the Eagle River. However, the Forest Plan did not recommend the Eagle River for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System, since it was not unique within the province and similar rivers were already recommended for inclusion. In addition, nondesignation allowed development of other resource values within the corridor. Early in the analysis, we looked for alternative routes that entirely avoided all eligible WSR corridors. These alternatives proved infeasible. We have chosen to select Alternative 2, Option 1 because the Eagle River valley corridor is the most economic of the development alternatives and has the least impact on rivers determined to be suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. How Issues Are Addressed In the following summary, we detail how the Selected Alternative addresses each of the significant issues. Refer to Chapter 2 of the Final EIS to supplement this discussion and provide a comparison of the proposed activities and environmental consequences of the alternatives. Funding of the Intertie is still uncertain. It depends on such things as the additional amount of State and Federal financing available, the final estimated construction cost, the price that KPU must pay for surplus power from Lake Tyee, and so on. In the face of this uncertainty, KPU is going forward with design and permitting for the Intertie based on the best information available to date. As plans progress, the project design and cost estimate will be finalized, issues of funding and ownership will be firmed up, and power sales agreements will be negotiated. A preliminary analysis had been completed based on a range of assumptions concerning the final construction cost, funding sources, and other economic parameters. Compared to the base case, which is defined as an all-diesel (no hydropower) approach to satisfying demand, the Selected Alternative would achieve a cost of power that would likely be higher initially than the base case. The cost could either be higher or lower through 2005, depending on the outcome of the many economic parameters noted earlier. By 2010 the cost of power would likely be lower than under the base case, and by 2015, the cost of power under the Selected Alternative could be as much as 6.3 cents per kWh less than under the all-diesel base case. Studies to date indicate the Selected Alternative would cost $64.6 million to construct. No measurable effects on fish habitat or water quality are expected under any of the alternatives. All alternatives meet the requirement and intent of the Clean Water Act. Some major watersheds in the Project Area have experienced prior road construction and timber harvest. Re-entering these drainages may generate a greater potential risk of RECORD OF DECISION @ 5 Record of Decision Issue 3— Wildlife and Biodiversity Issue 4— Aircraft Safety Issue 5— Subsistence and Cultural Resources 6 ™ RECORD OF DECISION impacts on water quality, with the risk expected to be greater in those watersheds with the higher cumulative harvest percentages (see FEIS, Appendix B). Additional measures of potential risk to water quality and fish habitat are: (1) the amount of soil disturbance, which is relative to the area of vegetation cleared; (2) the amount of clearing on slopes with a high or very high mass movement index adjacent to stream channels; (3) the amount of riparian area cleared; (4) the number of transmission line and road crossings of Class I, II, and III streams; and (5) the length of Class III stream shoreline vegetation removal due to right-of-way clearing. The action alternatives with the lowest risk to water quality and fish habitat would be Alternative 2 or 3 without the road (Option 1). The major effect of the action alternatives on wildlife habitats is some reduction of old- growth forest habitat (volume classes 4 to 7). Alternative 2, Option | achieves the second lowest amount of old-growth clearing (795 acres) possible among all action alternatives and options. Alternative 3 with Option | would clear only 5 fewer acres of old-growth habitat. Not constructing a road eliminates all impacts associated with an access road. Changes in management indicator species (MIS) habitat capability for the Selected Alternative would range from no change for black bear and mountain goat to 1.0 percent reduction in marten habitat capability (see FEIS, Appendix E). The Selected Alternative would reduce the frequency of large, unfragmented old-growth patches. The total area of old-growth patches greater than 10,000 acres would range from 82,612 acres under Alternative 2 with Option 7, to 96,760 acres under Alternative 3. This is a reduction from the existing 102,899 acres in this size category. The Selected Alternative would have greater long-term effects on fragmentation than Alternative 3 because a greater portion of its length traverses land use designations not planned for timber management than does Alternative 3. Construction of power lines that cross commonly used airways creates a risk that aircraft may strike the power lines while in flight. Each year approximately 250 aircraft are involved in wire strike accidents in the United States. Of the 42 aircraft accidents near Ketchikan and Wrangell since 1983, none were caused by wire strikes (FEIS, page 3-416). Construction of a new transmission line along the Selected Alternative route over Eagle River at Eagle Bay, Bell Arm, Behm Canal, the outlet from Long Lake, and Shrimp Bay would increase the risk of aircraft wire-strike accidents in the Project Area. Among the proposed new crossings, the potential for increased risk is greatest at Behm Canal and Shrimp Bay, and least at Eagle Bay, where a wire-strike hazard already exists. Other alternatives and options were considered that would reduce or eliminate these aerial crossings, but they were not selected because of their added expense (FEIS, page 2-49, Table 2-5). Mitigation measures designed to address the issue of aircraft safety include notices to pilots of line locations and line marker balls at aerial crossings. Such mitigation measures are widely used and have been found to be effective in similar situations in other areas in Alaska. Subsistence users are, by definition, residents of rural Alaska. The primary users of subsistence resources in the Project Area are Saxman residents, who qualify as subsistence users, and Ketchikan residents, who are not defined as subsistence users because they do not live in a rural area. Ketchikan was determined to be non-rural within the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), as well as by the Federal Subsistence Board (Federal Register Vol. 56, No. 2, Thursday, January 3, 1991:236-239). Issue 6— Recreational and Visual Resources Issue 7— Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSR) Record of Decision All action alternatives that include the access road (that is, all except Option 1) could create a significant possibility of a significant restriction of subsistence use of Sitka black- tailed deer by the residents of Saxman (but not other study communities) because the road would provide easier access to Ketchikan residents, potentially increasing their competition with Saxman users of the area. The Selected Alternative avoids this significant possibility of a significant restriction at this time by not authorizing construction of the road. Similarly, all action alternatives that include road construction would present a significant possibility of a significant restriction for black bear, marten, and river otter, again because of competition effects resulting from increased access by road. The Selected Alternative likewise avoids that result, although we must note that the current populations of marten and river otter are not sufficient to support current harvest levels. The foreseeable effects of the Selected Alternative do not present a significant possibility of a significant restriction of subsistence uses of marine mammals, waterfowl, salmon, other finfish, shellfish, and other foods. Fieldwork undertaken in the Project Area in 1995 identified four cultural resource sites between Swan Lake and Shrimp Bay or between Eagle River and the Lake Tyee substation along or near portions of the route that are common to Alternatives 2 and 3. All four of the sites are recommended as eligible or potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The sites include three wood stake or pole fish weirs or weir complexes, and one historic habitation, a collapsed cabin. The Selected Alternative, like all other alternatives and options, would indirectly affect the three sites other than the cabin, primarily by providing increased access that could lead to unauthorized collecting or vandalism. The Selected Alternative would not affect the cabin. Introduction of a transmission line (primarily the cleared right-of-way) along any of the Intertie routes would change the existing scenic qualities of parts of the Project Area, and would affect the recreational and visual experiences of some visitors to the Project Area. The Intertie’s effect on recreational resources is quantitatively measured by examining the changes in Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) settings that would occur and by displaying how many recreation places would be affected. Changes to scenic or visual quality are determined by evaluating how visible the Intertie’s features would be, as seen from important water-based locations called Key Viewing Areas (KVAs) (see FEIS, pages 3-335 to 3-375, and Appendix C). The Selected Alternative would convert the least amount of Primitive ROS setting (11,120 acres) to other ROS settings and would produce the least amount of Roaded Modified setting (900 acres). The Selected Alternative would pass through 12 recreation places. Alternative 3 would pass through 10 recreation places, two fewer than the Selected Alternative. The transmission line and cleared right-of-way of the Selected Alternative would be visible from 11 KVAs. Alternative 3 would be visible from nine KVAs, including four of the same ones affected by the Selected Alternative. The Selected Alternative would not affect the eligibility or suitability of rivers recommended for addition to the Wild and Scenic River System in the 1997 TLMP. The recommended rivers in the Project Area are Orchard Creek and Lake, Anan Creek (East Fork), Santa Anna Creek-Lake Helen, and Wolverine Creek-Lake McDonald. A key issue examined in the FEIS was what effects the various alternatives would have on the Forest Plan’s Wild and Scenic River recommendations to Congress. The selected alternative does not affect any of the rivers recommended for inclusion as Wild and Scenic Rivers in the Forest Plan. Alternative 3 would have affected the recommendation for Anan Creek. Orchard Creek and Lake’s recommendation would have been affected by Alternative 2, RECORD OF DECISION @ 7 Record of Decision Alternative Intertie Designs and Routes 8 m RECORD OF DECISION Option 2. The selected alternative avoids both of these recommended rivers. It does impact the outstandingly remarkable values associated with the Eagle River. However, the Forest Plan did not recommend the Eagle River for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System since it was not unique within the province and similar rivers were already recommended for inclusion. In addition, nondesignation allowed development of other resource values within the corridor. Early in the analysis, we looked for alternative routes that entirely avoided all eligible WSR corridors. These alternatives proved infeasible. We have chosen to select Alternative 2, Option 1 because the Eagle River valley corridor is the most economic of the development alternatives and has the least impact on rivers determined to be suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. Public Involvement Public involvement has been instrumental in the identification and clarification of issues for this project. This has been helpful in the formulation of alternatives and mitigation measures and has assisted us in making a more informed decision for the Swan Lake-Lake Tyee Intertie project. Public mailings, Federal Register notices, news releases, open houses, subsistence hearings, and group and individual meetings were some of the tools used to solicit public input for the project. Public scoping and involvement activities for the Intertie project are described in Chapter 1 of the Final EIS. Coordination With Other Agencies From the time scoping was initiated, meetings and other contacts with interested State and Federal agencies have occurred. Issues were discussed and information was exchanged. Chapter 7 of the Final EIS (see Distribution List) identifies the agencies who were informed of and/or involved in the planning process. Alternatives Eliminated From Detailed Study A number of alternatives were examined but not considered for detailed study in the EIS, including alternative routes for the Intertie and several projects that might substitute for the Intertie, such as potential hydroelectric power projects and other energy sources. Among the alternative Intertie designs and routes that were considered are the following: Alternative Design Configuration Between Lake Tyee and Eagle Bay In this design alternative for the segment between Lake Tyee and Eagle Bay, paralleling Bradfield Canal, the proposed transmission line would be constructed within the right-of- way of the existing Lake Tyee-Wrangell transmission line. The conclusion was that this Alternative Energy Sources Record of Decision alternative design configuration for the transmission line would be very difficult to construct technically, would result in a major compromise in reliability for both lines, would increase the visibility of the lines because of the size of the required structures, and would not reduce the right-of-way and clearing impacts or reduce the project cost. Complete Underwater Cable Route In the early 1980s, consultants evaluated a major submarine direct current (DC) transmission system to interconnect communities of Southeast Alaska, including Ketchikan and Petersburg. The submarine transmission system proposal included a 96-mile segment interconnecting Ketchikan and Petersburg. The cost (estimated over $100 million) of constructing this alternative and the use of unproven experimental design technology prohibited its serious consideration as an economically feasible alternative. East Side of Eagle Lake and River Route The potential for routing the transmission line on the east side of Eagle Lake and Eagle River to a point where it would parallel the existing Tyee transmission line was considered in earlier studies and was reviewed by the IDT. The route was eliminated from detailed study because of the steepness of the slopes along the east side of the lake and the very high landslide potential of the soils. Reflection Lake Route The IDT evaluated a route between Behm Canal and Bradfield Canal that would follow the Hoya Creek/Reflection Lake drainages rather than the Eagle River drainage as proposed by KPU. The IDT elected not to include the route in detailed evaluations primarily because the steep topography and evidence of snow avalanches indicated that the Intertie would be difficult to site and build in that location. During the scoping process, many commentors suggested that other sources of energy should be considered instead of or in addition to the Intertie. Table 1 provides a summary of projects identified as possible alternatives to the Intertie and the rationale for not considering them in detail. In general, the projects that might substitute for the Intertie were eliminated from detailed study because they do not meet all elements of the purpose and need statement, or are accounted for by the No Action Alternative. Alternatives Considered for Detailed Study Two action alternatives for the Intertie and one no-action alternative were considered in detail (Table 2). Each action alternative is consistent with the 1997 TLMP. This section provides a brief discussion of each alternative. For a complete description of each alternative, including maps, refer to Chapter 2 of the Final EIS. Alternative 1 (No Action) assumes KPU will meet its customers’ needs through greater reliance on diesel generation alone or in combination with power purchased from the proposed Mahoney Lake hydroelectric project. Alternative 2 (the proposed project) includes construction of an intertie along the route proposed by KPU, construction of a road from Upper Carroll Inlet to Shrimp Bay, and four aerial water crossings at Shrimp Bay, Behm Canal, Bell Arm, and Eagle Bay. Alternative 3 (the Hoya-Neets route) avoids the Eagle River valley and instead goes west on the Cleveland Peninsula. Alternative 3 includes one 6-mile underwater crossing of Behm Canal. RECORD OF DECISION @ 9 Record of Decision 10 ™@ RECORD OF DECISION Table 1 Summary of Alternative Energy Sources Not Considered in Detail Reason for Not Avg. Annual Capacity Considering in Alternative Energy (GWh) (MW) Detail Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric 41.7 9.6 (5), (7), (9) Lake Grace Hydroelectric 79.4-83.6 11.0-17.5 G52); G) Metlakatla Hydropower Hydroelectric NA NA (1), (2), (5) Third Unit at Lake Tyee Hydroelectric aa 10.0 (1), (5), (8) Sa Unit at Beaver Hydroelectric NA NA (1), (5), (7) s Silvis Lake Plant Hydroelectric NA NA (1), (2), (5), (7) Pumped Storage Manzanita & Ella Creek Hydroelectric 77.0 12.3 (1), (2), (3) Fish Creek Hydroelectric 30.0 4.8 (1), (2), (3) Gokachin River Hydroelectric 25.0 4.0 (1), (2), (3) Claude Lake Hydroelectric 22.0 BS (1), (2), (3), (8) Orchard Lake Hydroelectric 59.0 9.4 (1), (2), (8) Naha River Hydroelectric 31.0 5.0 (1), (2) Lake Whitman Hydroelectric 17.0 ae (1), (2), (5) Lake Perseverance Hydroelectric 12.0 Lg (1), (2), (5) Carlanna Lake Hydroelectric NA 0.5 (1), (2), (5), (7) Cascade Creek Hydroelectric 13 0.2 (1), (2), (5) Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric NA 4.5 (5) Wind Power Wind UN UN (1), (5) Tidal Power Tidal UN UN (1), (2), (3), (4) Generation Hydrogen/Oxygen Hydrogen/ UN UN (1), (2), (4) Oxygen Ketchikan Pulp Thermal 111.7 15.0 (6) Company Cogen Conservation Conservation Varies Varies (5) Diesel Generation Thermal As needed As needed (9) SOURCES: HDR Engineering, Inc. 1993 Personal communication, J. Hansen, Assistant Manager, R.W. Beck, Inc. 1995 Alaska Power & Telephone Company, Craig, Alaska, July R.W. Beck and Associates 1992 31, 1995 Corps of Engineers 1983 Cavanaugh et al. 1993 Ketchikan Public Utilities 1995 Saari 1995a Raytheon Engineers and Constructors 1995a Notes: (1) Likely to be more expensive than the Intertie (7) Does not provide desired improvements in KPU Project on a unit cost basis. system reliability or flexibility. (2) Likely to take more than 5 years to get on-line. (8) Needs Intertie in place to transfer power to Ketchikan. (3) Regulatory requirements likely to be excessive. (9) Considered under No Action Alternative. (4) Technology not proven in Alaska. NA Not available (5) Loa to meet KPU energy demands in UN Unknown 1999, (6) Inadequate fuel supply. Record of Decision Table 2 Alternatives and Options Considered in Detail Alternatives Description 1 No Action Proposed Project Route 3 Hoya-Neets Route Alternative 2 With the Following Options: Option 1 No Carroll Inlet to Shrimp Bay Access Road Option 2 Segment B to F Orchard Lake Option 3 Segment C to D2 Bluff Lake Option 4 Segment E to F Submarine Crossing—Shrimp Bay Option 5 Segment G to H3 Submarine Crossing—Behm Canal Option 6 Segment G to H1 Western Aerial Crossing—Behm Canal Option 7 Segment I to K Eagle River Crossing Notes: Option | and Option 3 can also be combined with Alternative 3. Options and their corresponding segments are displayed on Figure 1. Seven options to Alternative 2 are also considered in detail: Option 1 would eliminate the proposed road, and would accomplish Intertie construction entirely with helicopters. Option 2 (Orchard Lake) would take the Intertie route east of Orchard Lake rather than west along Neets Bay. Option 3 (Bluff Lake) would take the Intertie route south of Bluff Lake rather than north. Options 4 and 5 (submarine crossings of Shrimp Bay and Behm Canal) would replace the proposed aerial crossing with an underwater crossing at Shrimp Bay and Behm Canal, respectively. Option 6 (western aerial crossing of Behm Canal) would move the proposed Behm Canal aerial crossing to a different point farther west. Finally, Option 7 (Eagle River crossing) would replace the proposed Eagle River/Bay aerial crossing with an aerial crossing of Eagle River approximately 3 miles south of the bay. The reader should note that a number of alternatives could be made by combining different options. For example, Option 1 (no road) could be combined with Alternative 3, or Alternative 2 in combination with any other options. All effects associated with the road would be eliminated. As another example, one could create a new alternative by combining Alternative 2 with Option 4 (submarine crossing of Shrimp Bay), Option 5 (submarine crossing of Behm Canal) and Option 7 (Eagle River crossing) to eliminate all the effects of aerial water crossings. We considered many of these combinations before deciding on Alternative 2, Option 1 as our Selected Alternative. Figure | displays the Intertie route options and their corresponding map segments. RECORD OF DECISION @ 11 Record of Decision Figure 1 Swan Lake—Lake Tyee Intertie Route Segments Map Eagle Bay» -- es @ 1 1 1 1 ' 1 ¢ LEGEND Scale in Miles —--— Project Area Boundary aon #: Proposed Route a = Alternative Route 12 mM RECORD OF DECISION Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 (the Proposed Action) Alternative 3 (the Hoya-Neets Route) Record of Decision The No Action Alternative is defined as what KPU would do if the Intertie were not built. It includes an increased reliance on diesel generation alone or in combination with the purchase of power from the proposed Mahoney Lake hydroelectric project. KPU would follow this course of action to avoid brownouts and limitations to economic growth that would occur if no additions were made to current generating capacity. The No Action Alternative could meet the intermediate-term energy needs of KPU’s customers at reasonable rates, but would place an increasing reliance on fossil fuels. In this alternative, diesel generation would be used to meet KPU’s base load, a change from current practice wherein diesel generation is used only periodically to meet peak demands. The No Action Alternative would not make use of surplus Lake Tyee Project power, nor would it contribute to the development of a Southeast Alaska transmission network. As such, the alternative would not meet all elements of the project’s purpose and need. The project as originally proposed by KPU comprises several elements, as follows: . An electrical transmission line approximately 57 miles long connecting the Swan Lake hydroelectric project switchyard and the Lake Tyee hydroelectric project switchyard, consisting of overhead conductors supported by poles approximately 50 to 80 feet high, and centered on a cleared right-of-way about 100 to 200 feet wide. . A road approximately 26.5 miles long from the Swan Lake switchyard to Shrimp Bay, centered on a right-of-way 75 to 100 feet wide. ° A reconstructed log transfer facility (LTF) at Carroll Inlet (two existing LTF sites would also be used). . Temporary personnel barges and log process barges for use during right-of- way Clearing and transmission line construction. . Gravel pits, marshalling areas, helicopter landing sites, and other ancillary sites. The estimated cost of designing and building Alternative 2 would be $73.2 million (see Table 3). In Chapter 2 of the Final EIS, the Project Construction and Project Operation and Maintenance sections describe in more detail the features of the Intertie and how the proposed project or alternatives would be constructed, operated, and maintained. This 71-mile-long alternative makes a major departure from the proposed route (Figure 1). Instead of taking the more direct proposed route from Eagle Bay south through the Eagle River Valley, the Hoya-Neets route would go further west to the Hoya Creek Valley, then turn south and west across the back side of the Anan Creek area, run north of Lake McDonald, and then southeast along the peninsula between Spacious Bay and Yes Bay. This alternative would continue with a six-mile underwater crossing of Behm Canal, traverse the north shore of Neets Bay, and rejoin the Alternative 2 route near the east end of Neets Bay. RECORD OF DECISION @ 13 Record of Decision Table 3 (Page 1 of 4) Physical, Economic, and Environmental Effects of Alternatives Alternative 2, Alternative 3, Alternative 1 Option 1 Alternative 2 Option 1 Alternative 3 Item Units No Action Without Road With Road Without Road With Road PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS Transmission Line Length Over Land Miles NA 53.5 53.5 63.8 63.8 Over Water Miles NA 35) 85) 14 14 Under Water Miles NA 0 0 6 6 Total Miles NA 57 57 71.2 a2 Right-of-Way Land Area Transmission Line Acres NA 1,297 1,297 1,547 1,547 Road Acres NA 0 241 0 241 Total Acres NA 1,297 1,538 1,547 1,788 Roads and Facilities Road Length Miles NA 0 26.5 0 26.5 Road Right-of-Way Clearing Acres NA 0 241 0 241 Reconstructed Log Transfer Facilities Number NA 0 3 0 5 Processing Barge Sites Number NA a 3 4 4 Marshalling Areas Number NA 4 4 4 4 Land Camps Number NA 1 1 1 1 ECONOMIC EFFECTS Construction Costs Transmission Line Millions NA 43.0 43.0 60.8 60.8 Substation and Project Support Millions NA 21.6 21.6 29.0 29.0 Total Costs Without Road Millions NA 64.6 64.6 89.8 89.8 Road Costs Millions NA 0 8.6 0 8.6 Total Costs With Road Millions NA NA 32) NA 98.4 Operation and Maintenance Costs Annual NA 430,000 602,000 608,000 780,000 Construction Jobs Created Number 80 80 105 110 135 Wholesale Cost of Power” Year 2005 Low Estimate Cents/kWh Base (3.0) (1.7) (0.5) 0.8 High Estimate Cents/kWh Case 43 55 68 8.0 Year 2015 Low Estimate Cents/kWh Base (7.1) (6.3) (5.4) (4.6) High Estimate Cents/kWh Case (0.4) 0.4 1.3 22) ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Soils High/Very High Mass Movement Index Transmission Line Acres NA 417 417 441 441 Road Acres NA 0 52 0 52 Wetlands, Floodplains, and Riparian Wetlands Habitat Transmission Line Acres NA 772 772 855 855 Road Acres NA 0 121 0 121 Floodplains Cleared and Crossed Transmission Line Crossings Area Acres NA 18 18 16 16 Transmission Line Crossings Number NA 13 13 9 9 Road Crossings Area Acres NA 0 6 0 6 Road Crossings Number NA 0 11 0 11 Riparian Management Areas Transmission Line Acres NA 367 367 400 400 Road Acres NA 0 63 0 63 14 ™ RECORD OF DECISION Record of Decision Table 3 Physical, Economic, and Environmental Effects of Alternatives (Page 2 of 4) Alternative 2, Alternative 3, Alternative 1 Option 1 Alternative 2 Option 1 Alternative 3 Item Units No Action Without Road = With Road Without Road With Road Riparian Management Areas Transmission Line Acres NA 367 367 400 400 Road Acres NA 0 63 0 63 Streams Crossed by Transmission Line Class I Streams Number NA 28 28 24 24 Class II Streams Number NA 17 17 32 32 Class III Streams Number NA 32 32 49 49 Streams Crossed by Road Class I Streams Number NA 0 19 0 19 Class II Streams Number NA 0 21 0 21 Class III Streams Number NA 0 89 0 89 Streamside Vegetation Cleared Transmission Line Acres NA 114 114 155 155 Road Acres NA 0 25 0 25 Subsistence Significant Possibility of a Significant Restriction of Subsistence Use in Terms of Abundance and Distribution Deer Yes/No” No No No No No Bear Yes/No No No No No No Marten/River Otter Yes/No No No No No No Salmon Yes/No No No No No No Significant Possibility of a Significant Restriction of Subsistence Use for Each Community in Terms of Competition Saxman Deer Yes/No No No No No No Black Bear Yes/No No No No No No All Other Communities Deer Yes/No No No No No No Black Bear Yes/No No No No No No Marten/River Otter Yes/No Yes” Yes Yes Yes Yes Salmon Yes/No No No No No No Visual Resources Key Viewing Areas Affected Number NA ll 11 9 9 Timber Resources Total Old-Growth Habitat Cleared Acres NA 795 872 790 867 Total Suitable Timber Land Occupied by Acres NA 150 182 300 332 Right-of-Way of Transmission Line and Road Potential Commercial Timber Volume MMBF NA 15.2 16.9 16.4 18.1 Aircraft Safety Aerial Water Crossings Number NA 4 4 1 1 Underwater Cable Crossings Number NA 0 0 1 1 RECORD OF DECISION @ 15 Record of Decision Table 3 Physical, Economic, and Environmental Effects of Alternatives Alternative 2, Alternative 3, (Page 3 of 4) Alternative 1 Option 1 Alternative 2 Option 1 Alternative 3 Item Units No Action Without Road = With Road Without Road With Road Recreation Resources Changes in ROS Settings” Primitive Acres NA (11,120) (18,860) (10,750) (18,490) Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized Acres NA 8,560 11,670 9,760 12,870 Semi-Primitive Motorized Acres NA 1,680 1,680 230 230 Roaded Modified Acres NA 900 5,540 830 5,470 Recreation Places Crossed Number NA 12 12 10 10 Land Use Land-Use Designations Crossed Old-Growth Habitat (OG) Acres NA 34 42 208 217 Remote Recreation (RM) Acres NA 0 0 7 7 Semi-Remote Recreation (SM) Acres NA 657 659 223 225 Wild River (WR) Acres NA 0 0 15 15 Recreational River (RR) Acres NA 0 0 0 0 LUD II (L2) Acres NA 0 0 153 153 Modified Landscape (ML) Acres NA 184 238 347 400 Timber Production (TM) Acres NA 419 593 565 738 Transmission Line "TUS" Avoidance LUDs Miles NA 1.4 2.3 15.5 16.4 Crossed Land Status Federal Lands - Length Miles NA 46.9 69.0 57.2 79.3 Federal Lands - Area Acres NA 1,137 1,338 1,387 1,588 State and State-Selected Lands - Length Miles NA 6.6 11 6.6 11 State and State-Selected Lands - Area Acres NA 160 200 160 200 Cultural Resources Known Sites Potentially Affected Direct Effects Number NA 0 0 0 0 Indirect Effects Number NA 3 4 3 4 Wildlife Resources Percent Change in MIS Habitat Capability Sitka Black-tailed Deer Percent NA (0.9) (0.9) (1.4) (1.4) Mountain Goat Percent NA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Brown Bear Percent NA (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) Black Bear Percent NA 0.0 (2.2) 0.0 (2.2) Marten Percent NA (0.6) (0.9) (0.5) (0.8) Gray Wolf Percent NA (1.0) (1.1) (0.9) (1.0) River Otter Percent NA (0.6) (0.6) (0.5) (0.5) Red Squirrel Percent NA (0.3) (0.3) (0.4) (0.4) Vancouver Canada Goose Percent NA (0.6) (0.7) (0.6) (0.7) Bald Eagle Percent NA (0.6) (0.6) (0.6) (0.6) Red-breasted Sapsucker Percent NA (0.8) (0.8) (0.9) (0.9) Hairy Woodpecker Percent NA (0.7) (0.9) (0.9) (1.1) Brown Creeper Percent NA (0.4) (0.5) (0.5) (0.6) 16 ™ RECORD OF DECISION Record of Decision Table 3 (Page 4 of 4) Physical, Economic, and Environmental Effects of Alternatives Alternative 2, Alternative 3, Alternative 1 Option 1 Alternative 2 Option 1 Alternative 3 Item Units No Action Without Road = With Road Without Road With Road Aerial Crossings Where There is a Concern Number NA 4 4 1 1 for Waterfowl Collisions Biodiversity and Old Growth Unfragmented Old-Growth Habitat Remaining In Patches greater than 10,000 acres Acres 102,899 82,612 82,547 96,825 96,760 In Patches 5,000 to 10,000 acres Acres 34,659 26,163 26,163 14,376 14,376 () = Negative number, unless otherwise noted. 1/ These figures indicate a possible range of costs relative to the base case, which is defined as all-diesel electric power generation. 2/ No = An insignificant possibility of a substantial effect; assumes construction access road is built and closed, or is not built. Yes = A significant possibility of a substantial effect. 3/ Marten and river otter populations in the Project Area are already insufficient to support current harvest levels. 4/ ROS = Recreation Opportunity Spectrum; see Chapter 3, FEIS, Recreation, Roadless Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and Wilderness section RECORD OF DECISION @ 17 Record of Decision Options to Alternative 2 18 m RECORD OF DECISION The Forest Service considered Alternative 3 for several reasons: ° It would be a means of avoiding the Eagle River drainage. ° It would concentrate more of the transmission line in areas planned for timber harvest. This route coincides with parts of the North Revilla timber sale area. ° Roads constructed for use in the North Revilla timber sale would also be available for future transmission line maintenance access. . The number of marine water crossings, either aerial or underwater, would be reduced. . The number of recreation places and key viewing areas affected would be reduced. . More non-forested or low-volume land areas would be crossed, potentially reducing impacts to wildlife habitat. The estimated cost of designing and constructing Alternative 3 would be nearly $98.4 million (see Table 3). Option 1—No Carroll Inlet to Shrimp Bay Road follows the same route as Alternative 2, but assumes that no road would be built from the Swan Lake switchyard to Shrimp Bay. This is the Selected Alternative and also corresponds to KPU’s current proposal. The southern 26 miles of the transmission line would be built using the same helicopter construction techniques proposed for the northern section. Without the road, the LTF at Carroll Inlet would not be rebuilt. Not building the road would save an estimated $8.6 million in design and construction costs. Option 2—Orchard Lake would be the same as Alternative 2 except that the transmission line would be routed across Orchard Creek, east around Orchard Lake to Klam Creek; however, the road would continue west along Neets Bay to Shrimp Bay. This route would avoid an aerial crossing of Shrimp Bay, but it would traverse the recommended Orchard Creek WSR corridor. This option would cost an estimated $0.2 million more than the Alternative 2 route. Option 3—Bluff Lake would be the same as Alternative 2 except that the transmission line would be routed on the south side rather than the north side of Bluff Lake. The area north of the lake is steep and has a history of landslides; the south side might provide a more reliable location. If this option were selected, the road would still be located north of Bluff Lake. This option would cost an estimated $0.8 million more than the Alternative 2 route. Option 4—Submarine Crossing of Shrimp Bay would replace the proposed aerial crossing of Shrimp Bay with an underwater crossing. Underwater crossings are accomplished using specially made submarine cables, as outlined in Chapter 2 of the Final EIS in the Project Construction section. If this option were selected, it would cost an estimated $1.8 million more than the Alternative 2 aerial route. Option 5—Submarine Crossing of Behm Canal would replace the proposed aerial crossing of Behm Canal, as well as the aerial crossing of Bell Arm and Bell Island, with a submarine crossing of Behm Canal and an overland segment along the east side of Anchor Pass. A similar submarine crossing route was examined in an earlier study (R.W. Beck), but was rejected because it crossed the boundary into Misty Fiords National Monument. Option 5 was designed to stay outside the Misty Fiords boundary and to avoid making Record of Decision landfall in front of the Forest Service recreation cabin at Anchor Pass. This option would cost an estimated $5.5 million more than the Alternative 2 aerial route. Option 6—Western Aerial Crossing of Behm Canal was suggested by the Forest Service as an aerial alternative to the proposed aerial crossing of Behm Canal. By keeping a more western alignment, this option might be less visible to people fishing, boating, or sightseeing at the point where Anchor Pass meets Behm Canal. The Option 6 segment is approximately 1/2 mile longer and would cost an estimated $0.6 million more than the Alternative 2 route. Option 7—Eagle River Crossing was recommended by the design engineers as an alternative to the proposed long aerial crossing of Eagle River at Eagle Bay. Approximately 7,200 feet long, this crossing is longer (by 2,200 feet) than ideally preferred given the expected snow and ice loading. Option 7 crosses areas of known landslides and is approximately 6.9 miles long, while the comparable section of Alternative 2 is 8.6 miles long. Option 7 would cost an estimated $3.3 million less than the Alternative 2 route. Environmentally Preferred Alternative Alternative 1 is the environmentally preferable alternative. This is defined as the alternative having the least adverse effects to the physical and biological (as opposed to the social and economic) environments. In comparing action alternatives, Alternative 2, Option 1 is environmentally preferred for the following reasons: . It avoids crossing a legislated LUD II area. . It avoids affecting any rivers recommended in the Forest Plan as Wild and Scenic Rivers. . It drops construction of the access road. . It uses one of the shortest routes and hence clears the least amount of land. Planning Record The Planning Record for this project includes the Draft EIS, Final EIS, the 1997 TLMP, the Alaska Regional Guide, and all material incorporated by reference and all relevant documents produced during the environmental analyses of this project. The Planning Record is available for review at the Ketchikan Ranger District office, Ketchikan, Alaska. RECORD OF DECISION @ 19 Record of Decision National Forest Management Act 20 m RECORD OF DECISION Mitigation Mitigation measures are prescribed to avoid, reduce, minimize, or rectify the adverse effects of actions (Table 4). These measures were applied in the development of the project alternatives, including the Selected Alternative, through avoidance of specific geographic areas, and in the design of the route and construction techniques. The Mitigation Measures section of Chapter 2 of the Final EIS discusses the mitigation Mitigation measures applicable to the Selected Alternative include those contained in the standards and guidelines of the 1997 TLMP, the Alaska Regional Guide, and applicable Forest Service Manuals and Handbooks. All practical means to avoid or minimize adverse environmental effects of the Selected Alternative have been adopted. Measures have been included to protect, enhance, and restore resources affected by project construction and operation. The Forest Service has the authority to enforce and implement adopted mitigation measures and the monitoring necessary to ensure the effectiveness of the mitigation. The site-specific mitigation measures listed in Table 4 are authorized for application to the Intertie project. Monitoring And Enforcement A monitoring program is the process by which the Forest Service can evaluate whether or not mitigation is implemented as specified, and whether or not mitigation is effective. Three levels of monitoring are recognized. The first level, implementation monitoring, is routinely conducted at the project level and covers basically all project activities. The second and third levels, effectiveness and validation monitoring, are conducted at the Forestwide level. A more detailed discussion of monitoring is provided in Chapter 2 of the Final EIS. Monitoring activities may reveal results that deviate from planned effects, in which case corrective action may be prescribed (40 CFR 1505.2(c)). The Ketchikan and Wrangell Ranger District Rangers are responsible for ensuring that project implementation, mitigation, monitoring, and enforcement are accomplished as specified. Findings Required By Law And Regulations All management activities in association with this Record of Decision are consistent with the Alaska Regional Guide and the 1997 TLMP. For vegetation manipulation projects, the NFMA also requires that management prescriptions: 1. "Be best suited to the multiple use goals established for the area....". The Selected Alternative avoids environmentally sensitive areas and minimizes conflicts with recreation and visual resources to the extent practical while maintaining an economically feasible project. Record of Decision Table 4 Site-Specific Mitigation Measures Incorporated into the Selected Alternative Page 1 of 5 Mitigation Measures Description Fish, Water Quality, and Soils Fl Minimize clearing in areas with high or very high mass movement potential. F2 Full suspension logging systems will be required in areas with high mass movement potential on McGilvery soils (BMP 13.9). F3 Require split yarding and directional felling along all streams that cannot be avoided or spanned (BMPs 12.7 and 13.16). Logging plan and design maps will indicate all protected stream courses. These maps will be reviewed prior to implementation. F4 Span, without clearing, steep v-notch streams with high erosion potential. F5 Establish timing restrictions for any instream activities in anadromous streams and streams with a downstream influence on anadromous habitat (BMP 14.6). Locations and operating plans for heavy equipment placed in the right-of-way must be specified to ensure that all necessary stream crossings are specified and mitigated. F6 Develop an erosion control plan, prior to construction commencement, to address soil disturbance during construction, operation and maintenance activities. Measures to reestablish vegetation or otherwise stabilize soils and minimize sediment transport shall be reviewed by the Forest Service (BMP 12.17). During construction in the Neets Creek watershed, implement erosion control measures to ensure that State Water Quality Standards for drinking water are met for the Neets Bay Fish Hatchery. F7 Remove construction slash in streams to ensure that debris generated during construction is prevented from obstructing channels or encroaching on streams. Right-of-way slash must not be left or placed below the high water mark at power line stream crossings (BMP 14.19). F8 Avoid construction in areas with high mass movement potential, when possible, by limiting the number of towers and by spanning areas of concern. Tower locations should incorporate site-specific geotechnical investigations to ensure location at stable sites. F9 Implement feathering of edges where right-of-way clearing approaches within 100 feet of a temperature sensitive stream. F10 Instream protection notwithstanding, where clearing is necessary within 100 feet of anadromous streams and their resident fish tributaries, leave felled trees in place but not blocking stream channel. Fill Prepare a Stream Course Protection Plan for all Class I streams and Class II streams flowing directly into Class I streams where power line crosses and/or parallels it within 100 feet (BMP 13.16) F12 Blasting plans will be supported by site-specific geotechnical investigations showing blasting as a suitable and prudent practice. Blasting operations will be designed to reduce the risk of mass failure on potentially unstable or saturated soils. Use current regional specifications where mass wasting due to blast vibration is likely. Blasting plans will address corrective actions and contingencies for restoring resources damaged by overshot rock or mass wasting (BMP 14.7). F13 All ground disturbing support facilities, i.e., marshalling areas, sort yards, land camps, etc., will require site-specific erosion control and restoration plans prior to construction commencement. RECORD OF DECISION @ 21 Record of Decision Table 4 Site-Specific Mitigation Measures Incorporated into the Selected Alternative Page 2 of 5 Mitigation Measures Description Fl4 The Forest Service will review stream course protection plans, design drawings and specifications to ensure that site-specific mitigation measures are incorporated in the contruction documents. Wetlands, Floodplains, and Riparian Management Areas RMA 1 RMA 2 Where practicable, avoid siting transmission line towers in wetlands, floodplains, and riparian areas. At this time, the Forest Service is not allowing water drops, log bags, or log rafting operations in the Bradfield Canal or other nearby important commercial fishing areas (where floating or sinking debris could interfere with commercial fishing). Site-specific or time- specific variances to this may be granted based on monitoring of local conditions (fishing seasons, dispersal, or deterioration of previous debris in saltwater, etc.) Logs in the Bradfield Canal area will be transferred directly from upland areas to a barge for transport. Vegetation and Timber Tl T2 T3 Wildlife wl Ww2 W3 w4 WS Where practicable, locate right-of-way edges perpendicular to the prevailing winds to minimize windthrow. Use feathered right-of-way edges to minimize vegetation removal, windthrow, and visual impacts. Prior to construction and clearing operations, conduct rare plant surveys on “high-probability habitat" of approximately 10 to 25 percent of the cleared transmission line right-of-way. High-probability habitat criteria will be provided by the Forest Service. In addition, rare plant surveys should be conducted in all high-probability habitat outside the right-of-way subject to ground disturbing activities. These areas include, but are not limited to, tower locations, LTFs, construction camps, and marshalling yards. Provide line markers on the transmission line to minimize the risk of bird collision at known areas of concern. Provide for snag retention and structural diversity by leaving non-hazard snags within the cleared right-of-way. Leave non-danger trees and snags along the right-of-way boundaries. Where possible, allow the size and density of snags to be dictated by standards and guidelines for cavity-nesting species. Non-hazard snags may be retained in clumps away from conductors and in protected draws to minimize blowdown effects and conflicts with safety standards. To minimize restriction of wildlife movements, burn or pile heavy (more than 18 inches deep) slash, or create openings through slash at regular intervals (every 100 yards and/or at identified game trail crossings), unless specifically waived by the Forest Service. Maintain a 330-foot forested radius around any bald eagle nest identified within the Project Area. Between March | and August 31, restrict controlled blasting on all transmission line sites within a 0.5 mile radius of a bald eagle nest site, and restrict all helicopter logging and/or flight paths within one-quarter mile of a nest. These restrictions may be lifted after June | if the nest is found to be unoccupied. All management activities will be consistent with the Interagency Bald Eagle Management Agreement unless a variance is granted from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. If a wolf den site is found in the right-of-way, restrict clearing construction within 0.5 mile during wolf mating, denning, and rearing periods, from February | to July 30. Timing restrictions may be lifted after April 30 if the den is determined to be unoccupied. 22 ™ RECORD OF DECISION Record of Decision Table 4 Site-Specific Mitigation Measures Incorporated into the Selected Alternative Page 3 of 5 Mitigation Measures Description W6 Inform all construction personnel concerning laws restricting the use of aircraft, especially helicopters, for hunting and harassment of wildlife. Ww7 Do not allow hunting activities by construction crews while they are using project housing, vehicles, or other project-related transportation. ws Follow USFWS recommendations for transmission conductor separation and height to prevent eagle electrocutions. w9 Require bearproof storage of food and incineration of garbage at all land camp areas during transmission line construction activities. W110 Inform contract personnel and other persons in the area that peregrine falcons or bald eagles could potentially be present and that they are protected by law. Instruct all personnel about the proper procedures for reporting suspected sightings or signs of threatened, endangered or sensitive plant and animal species. wil Restrict right-of-way clearing activities between November 1 and March 30 where wintering trumpeter swans, if found, might be disturbed. Areas include Carroll Inlet estuary, Orchard Lake, Shrimp Bay estuary, Klu Bay estuary, Lake McDonald, Eagle Bay, and possibly other areas. wi2 Establish aircraft flight routes using lower elevations as much as possible for all helicopter activity to minimize disturbance to mountain goats. Schedule construction and future maintenance work from June 15 through October 31 to minimize potential impacts. wi3 Restrict helicopter and construction activity within 0.25 mile of identified goat habitat between May 15 and July 1. wi4 Prohibit intentional helicopter approaches to mountain goats to avoid harassment. wis Limit project related boat traffic and aircraft flights if humpback whales or Steller sea lions are observed migrating through or near the Project Area. Humpback whales should not be approached within 100 yards by boats less than 100 feet in length or within % mile by boats over 100 feet in length. Avoid aircraft flights below 500 feet in the vicinity of whales. Hauled out marine mammals should not be approached by boat within 100 yards. Sightings of humpback whales or Stellar sea lions should be reported to the Forest Service. Wi6 Properly dispose of cables and logging equipment from inactive log processing sites following the standards and guidelines of the 1997 TLMP. Wwi7 Conduct goshawk surveys on route if not conducted previously. Courtship surveys conducted in April are the recommended type of survey. If a goshawk nest is discovered, it shall be reported to the Forest Service, and current direction will be followed (25 acres of protection around the nest tree and 75 acres around the nest stand). Visual Resources Vi v2 In viewsheds of KVAs where there are conflicts or potential conflicts with VQOs: darken towers and use dull finishes to reduce reflectivity; use non-reflective and non-refractive insulators if glass is not required for safety and reliability; and use non-specular conductors. At the time of delivery, inspect all line construction materials (poles and other tower elements, insulators, and conductors) for conformance with specifications related to color and teflectivity. RECORD OF DECISION @ 23 Record of Decision Table 4 Site-Specific Mitigation Measures Incorporated into the Selected Alternative Page 4 of 5 Mitigation Measures Description v3 v4 Recreation Rl R2 In viewsheds of all KVAs, feather visible right-of-way cuts by leaving the smaller vegetation and narrow the right-of-way near the towers as described in Chapter 2 of the FEIS. Develop and apply measures to restore and revegetate LTF sites and marshaling areas. Keep all permitted outfitters/guides informed of construction schedule. Provide advance notice to allow outfitters/guides to plan trips around construction activities. Within the limits of safety, establish flight routes along Eagle Lake to reduce impacts of helicopters and fixed wing aircraft on the users of the Eagle Lake cabin. Cultural Resources Cl c2 C3 Prior to construction, conduct cultural resource surveys on the Selected Alternative route affected by design changes made since initial field surveys. Focus surveys on areas of high cultural resource probability as defined in a programmatic agreement between the USDA Forest Service, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer. Prior to construction, complete all consultation with the Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer, and if necessary, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and appropriate Native tribes. Avoid right-of-way clearing and construction of transmission line towers at known cultural sites where practicable. If avoidance of cultural sites is not feasible or practicable, KPU’s cultural resource contractor will develop a data recovery plan to mitigate the effects on those sites in accordance with Forest Service guidelines, and involve the State of Alaska and the appropriate Native tribes. Exposure of previously unknown cultural properties during construction will be reported by the project environmental monitor to KPU’s cultural resource contractor and the Forest Service. The cultural resource contractor will determine if it is appropriate for the unknown properties to be recorded and evaluated for National Register eligibility. Health and Safety H1 H2 Contact appropriate organizations (such as Sea Pilots Association), Notices to Airmen (NOTAM) services, and interests that print and/or distribute aeronautical charts to inform them of tower and conductor locations and altitudes. Provide conductor markers such as international orange balls at Shrimp Bay, Long Lake, Behm Canal, Bell Arm, and Eagle Bay. Provide markers at towers located at aerial crossings of Shrimp Bay, Behm Canal, Bell Arm, and Eagle Bay. General Mitigation Measures Gl G2 G3 Conduct environmental staff review of construction drawings and specifications prior to the package being sent out to bidding contractors to ensure that the package reflects and adheres to the mitigation measures presented in this ROD. Prior to construction, review plans for the clearing required for the transmission line right-of- way and marshalling areas located in KVA viewsheds for conformance with visual mitigation requirements. Prior to construction, inspect areas marked for clearing to determine conformance with agreed upon plans, and the need for adjustments based on special site conditions. 24 ™ RECORD OF DECISION Record of Decision Table 4 Site-Specific Mitigation Measures Incorporated into the Selected Alternative Page 5 of 5 Mitigation Measures Description G4 Where mitigation is contingent on an ‘‘identified’’ location or resource, the permittee will provide a detailed map displaying the resources to be mitigated in a manner which will allow timely review of site specific mitigation prior to project implementation. GS The preparation of the special use permits for this project will incorporate an interdisciplinary review to ensure that all mitigation measures are included in the permit. Periodic interdisciplinary review of design plans and documents will also ensure that mitigation is implemented as intended on a site-specific basis. Finally, routine permit administration, including field inspections and inspection documents, will ensure that mitigation is applied as intended during powerline construction, operation, and maintenance activities. All of these processes constitute implementation monitoring. Site-Specific Rerouting Considerations Sl During final design, field check locations that have specific resource concerns and make minor adjustments to routes or tower placement where practicable if it would result in a reduction of environmental impacts. $2 During final design, field check transmission line alignment near Eagle River and Eagle Lake to determine whether potential impacts could be reduced by slightly rerouting or changing tower locations. Merchantable Timber Removal MT 1 All merchantable timber on the cleared right-of-way must be removed within two miles of a suitable landing area, except near Eagle Bay where removal is required within one mile of a suitable landing area. 1/_ Refer to the appropriate section of Chapter 3 of the FEIS for a more complete description of each measure. Notes: An Environmental Monitor (EM), supplied by KPU, will be on the site during clearing and construction activities. The EM will ensure that all clearing and construction-related activities comply with Federal and state regulations and policies, and will ensure that the mitigation measures included in the FEIS are followed. One of the EM’s duties will be to train and work with the construction contractor’s management and labor personnel to ensure environmental compliance. RECORD OF DECISION @ 25 Record of Decision Endangered Species Act of 1973 26 ™ RECORD OF DECISION 2. "Assure that lands can be adequately restocked....". The area within clearing limits of the Intertie corridor will not be managed for commercial timber production but will be managed to maintain herbaceous and woody vegetation ground cover. 3. "Not be chosen primarily because they will give the greatest dollar return or the greatest output of timber....". Clearcutting along the right-of-way beneath the power line is required to keep trees from growing into the transmission cables. In some locations (totaling approximately 3 to 4 miles), trees would not be removed from the right-of-way where valleys are spanned by the transmission line. In stands of variable tree height, only taller trees would be removed near the edges of the right-of-way. 4. "Be chosen after considering potential effects on residual trees....". Windthrow has not been a serious problem along other rights-of-way in Southeast Alaska. Feathered edges through stands with varying tree height will serve to minimize windthrow. Removal of merchantable timber from the cleared right-of-way will help minimize bark beetle infestations. Opening of the right-of-way itself may expose residual stands to increased dwarf-mistletoe by increasing the light available to infected trees adjacent to the right- of-way. 5. "Avoid permanent impairment of site productivity and ensure conservation of soil and water resources." The transmission corridor selected avoids known areas of unstable slopes to the extent practicable. Application of Best Management Practices (FSH 2509.22 Soil and Water Conservation) during construction will assure maintenance of site productivity, soils, and water resources both on and adjacent to the cleared right- of-way. 6. "Provide the desired effects on water quantity and quality, wildlife and fish habitat, regeneration of desired tree species, ... and other resource yields....". Application of BMPs, selection of the corridor route, and feathering of the right-of-way edge where possible to provide a windfirm buffer all are designed to ensure minimal adverse effects or beneficial effects on other resources. 7. "Be practical in terms of transportation and harvesting requirements, and total costs of preparation, logging and administration." The Selected Alternative requires the removal of merchantable timber where economically feasible under current timber market conditions. A Biological Assessment (see FEIS, Appendix E) was prepared for the five threatened and endangered species that may occur in the Project Area: the Snake River sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka), Snake River fall and spring/summer Chinook salmon (Oncorhyncus tschawytscha), American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum), humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), and Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus). The Biological Assessment concludes that the alternatives are not likely to affect listed species or designated or proposed critical habitat. A Biological Evaluation for federal species of concern has also been prepared (see FEIS, Appendix E). The Biological Evaluation includes a discussion of Alexander Archipelago wolf (Canis lupus ligoni), Queen Charlotte goshawk (Accipiter gentilis laingi), spotted frog (Rana pretiosa), harlequin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus), olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus borealis), marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus), Kittlitz’s murrelet (B. brevirostris), arctic peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus tundris), North American lynx National Historic Preservation Act of 1996 Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988 Subsistence Evaluations and Findings Executive Orders Record of Decision (Felis lynx canadensis), thickglume reedgrass (Calamagrostis crassiglumis), and goose- grass sedge (Carex lenticularis var. dolia). The evaluation concludes that habitat of the goshawk, wolf, lynx, and marbled murrelet may be affected, but that populations are not likely to be significantly affected because of the small amount of habitat involved. The evaluation concludes that neither the habitat nor the populations of Kittlitz’s murrelet, Arctic peregrine falcon, goose-grass sedge, thickglume reedgrass, spotted frog, or harlequin duck are likely to be affected. It is unclear whether or not the habitat of the olive-sided flycatcher would be affected, but in any event, populations are unlikely to be affected. The Biological Evaluation also discusses twelve sensitive species, including nine vascular plants and three vertebrate species on the Alaska Region Sensitive Species list. The only vertebrate species whose population could potentially be affected is the trumpeter swan (Cygnus buccinator). Plant species are unlikely to be affected either because they occur in habitats unlikely to be affected by clearing of the transmission line corridor, or if thought to occur in habitats found along the corridor, because the amount of clearing relative to remaining habitats is small. The Forest Service program for compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended, 1980 (PL 96-515), includes locating, inventorying, and nominating all cultural properties that may be directly or indirectly affected by scheduled activities. A cultural resource inventory has been completed, and SHPO clearance has been documented. The Federal Cave Resources Protection Act establishes that Federal lands be managed in a manner that protects and maintains significant caves. Known significant caves in or immediately adjacent to the Project Area have been protected by eliminating high vulnerability karst from proposed project activities and by the application of standards and guidelines of the 1997 TLMP. Section 810 of ANILCA requires a Federal agency having jurisdiction over lands in Alaska to evaluate the potential effects of proposed land-use activities on subsistence uses and needs. We have determined that there is no significant possibility of a significant restriction of subsistence use of any subsistence resource in the Project Area as a result of the Project. However, marten and river otter populations in the Project Area are already insufficient to support current harvest levels of these species. Additionally, increased demand and cumulative effects of other future actions, such as timber sales, may result in a significant restriction of subsistence use of black bear, marten, and river otter in the Project Area, due primarily to competition between subsistence users and residents of non-rural communities. We have taken reasonable steps to minimize adverse impacts on subsistence uses and resources, including eliminating all road construction and rerouting the line to reduce clearing near Carroll Creek and Neets Creek. Because of this, additional adverse effects on subsistence associated with the Intertie should be minimal. Further, the Selected Alternative is necessary, consistent with sound management of public lands, and involves an appropriate amount of public land necessary to accomplish the purpose and need. Floodplain Management (E.O. 11988) Executive Order 11988 directs Federal agencies to take action to avoid, to the extent possible, the long and short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and RECORD OF DECISION @ 27 Record of Decision Coastal Zone Management Act Federal and State Permits 28 m RECORD OF DECISION modification of floodplains. The design of the proposed development and the application of Best Management Practices combine to minimize adverse impacts on floodplains. Protection of Wetlands (E.0. 11990) Executive Order 11990 requires Federal agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, the long and short-term adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands. Tower locations in the Selected Alternative avoid most identified wetlands; however, many small wetlands or muskegs occur as inclusions along the corridor. These areas may be spanned by the transmission line, and clearing of forested wetlands would be limited to only that necessary to site and maintain the line. There will be no loss of wetlands under the Selected Alternative. Soil moisture regimes and vegetation on some wetlands may be altered in some cases; however, these altered acres would still be classified as wetlands and function as wetlands in the ecosystem. Environmental Justice (E.O. 12898) Executive Order 12898 directs Federal agencies to identify human health and environmental effects of agency programs that disproportionately impact minority and low income populations. Section 4-4 of this executive order addresses subsistence consumption of fish and wildlife. Subsistence consumption patterns were analyzed and the effects of the project on subsistence uses were documented in the FEIS. Recreational Fisheries (E.O. 12962) We have evaluated the effects of this project on aquatic systems and recreational fisheries as required by Executive Order 12962, signed on June 7, 1995. This project will have little or no effect on recreational fisheries. Proper application of Best Management Practices during timber removal operations will ensure the protection of aquatic systems upon which both resident and anadromous fish depend. Federal lands are excluded from the coastal zone as described in the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1976. However, the Act does require the Forest Service, when conducting activities or undertaking development directly affecting the coastal zone, to ensure that the activities or development be consistent with the approved Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) to the maximum extent practicable. The project proponent, Ketchikan Public Utilities, must provide a Coastal Project Questionnaire to the State of Alaska certifying that the project is consistent with the ACMP. State certification will be required before KPU is issued a permit to begin construction. Federal and State permits necessary to implement the authorized activities are listed at the end of Chapter 1 of the Final EIS. Implementation Process Implementation of this decision may occur no sooner than 50 days following publication of the legal notice of the decision in the Ketchikan Daily News, published in Ketchikan, Alaska. Record of Decision Process For Change During Implementation Proposed changes to the authorized project actions will be subject to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA), Section 810 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), the Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA), the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), and other laws concerning such changes. No changes requiring modification of KPU’s permit, once granted, will be approved without the signature of the contracting or permitting officers, or their successors or superiors. In determining whether and what kind of NEPA action is required, the Forest Supervisor will consider the criteria to supplement an existing EIS in 40 CFR 1502.9(c) and FSH 1909.15, Section 18, and in particular, whether the proposed change is a substantial change to the Selected Alternative as planned and already approved, and whether the change is relevant to environmental concerns. Connected or interrelated proposed changes regarding particular areas or specific activities will be considered together in making this determination. The cumulative impacts of these changes will also be considered. About one-half of the field verification to date was to determine the feasibility of the route, not to locate the final boundaries of right-of-way clearing and tower locations. The other half of the field verification activities have resulted in specific tower locations and line design. Minor changes are expected during implementation to better meet onsite resource management and protection objectives. Minor adjustments to right-of-way boundaries are also likely during final layout for the purpose of improving tower locations. Many of these minor changes will not present sufficient potential impacts to require any specific documentation or action to comply with applicable laws. Some minor changes may still require appropriate analysis and documentation to comply with FSH 1909.15, Section 18. RECORD OF DECISION @ 29 Record of Decision 30 m RECORD OF DECISION Right To Appeal This decision is subject to appeal pursuant to 36 CFR Part 215. A written notice of appeal must be filed with the Appeal Deciding Officer, in this case, the Regional Forester, Alaska Region: Phil Janik, Regional Forester Forest Service-Alaska Region PO Box 21628 Juneau, Alaska 99802-1628 The Notice of Appeal must be filed within 45 days of publication of notice of this decision in the Ketchikan Daily News and Wrangell Sentinel, the official newspapers of record. In accordance with 36 CFR Section 215.14, it is the responsibility of those who appeal a decision to provide the Appeal Deciding Officer sufficient evidence and argument to show why the decision by the Responsible Officials should be changed or reversed. Ata minimum, the written notice of appeal filed must: 1. State that the document is a Notice of Appeal filed pursuant to 36 CFR Part 215. 2. List the name, address, and telephone number of appellant; 3. Identify the decision document by title and subject, date of decision, and name and title of the Responsible Officials; 4. Identify the specific change(s) in the decision that the appellant seeks or portion of the decision to which the appellant objects; and 5. State how the Responsible Official’s decision fails to consider comments previously provided, either before or during the comment period specified in 36 CFR 215; and if applicable, how the appellant believes the decision violates law, regulation, or policy. Contact Person For more information concerning the specific activities authorized with this decision contact the EIS Coordinator: Bill Angelus, EIS Coordinator Ketchikan Area, Tongass National Forest Ketchikan Ranger District 3031 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, AK 99901 “A Hever J. DeHERRERA STEPHEN J. BRADY mn t Ranger District Ranger ikan Ranger District Wrangell Ranger District Tongass National Forest Tongass National Forest g/2al97 SLi 92 Date Date